Pain Control After Shoulder Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials With a Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder arthroscopy is one of the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures used to treat a variety of conditions, with >500,000 procedures performed each year. PURPOSE: To systematically review the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pain control after shoulder arthroscopy in the acute postoperative setting and to ascertain the best available evidence in managing pain after shoulder arthroscopy to optimize patient outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were included if they were RCTs evaluating interventions to reduce postoperative pain after shoulder arthroscopy: nerve blocks, nerve block adjuncts, subacromial injections, patient-controlled analgesia, oral medications, or other modalities. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. RESULTS: Our study included 83 RCTs. Across 40 studies, peripheral nerve blocks were found to significantly reduce postoperative pain and opioid use, but there was no significant difference among the variable nerve blocks in the network meta-analysis. However, continuous interscalene block did have the highest P-score at most time points. Nerve block adjuncts were consistently shown across 18 studies to prolong the nerve block time and reduce pain. Preoperative administration was shown to significantly reduce postoperative pain scores (P < .05). No benefit was found in any of the studies evaluating subacromial infusions. CONCLUSION: Continuous interscalene block resulted in the lowest pain levels at most time points, although this was not significantly different when compared with the other nerve blocks. Additionally, nerve block adjuncts may prolong the postoperative block time and improve pain control. There is promising evidence for some oral medications and newer modalities to control pain and reduce opioid use. However, we found no evidence to support the use of subacromial infusions or patient-controlled analgesia.

Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff tears are a common pathology, with an increasing number of repairs being performed arthroscopically. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the results in the current meta-analyses on arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, looking specifically at double-row repair compared with single-row repair, at whether platelet-rich plasma should be used adjunctively at the time of the surgical procedure, and at the effects of early-motion compared with late-motion rehabilitation postoperatively. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were screened for meta-analyses on arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The levels and quality of the evidence were assessed, and the clinical outcomes were evaluated. A significant result was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: Twenty-four meta-analyses were identified, with 10 meta-analyses on double-row repair compared with single-row repair, 7 meta-analyses on platelet-rich plasma compared with a control, and 7 meta-analyses on early motion compared with late motion. Studies found a significant result in terms of reduced retear rates and/or increased tendon-healing rate for double-row repair (6 of 10 studies; p < 0.05), without a clinically important improvement in functional outcomes (0 of 10 studies). There was a favorable outcome when using platelet-rich plasma in small-to-medium tears in terms of a reduced rate of retear (4 of 4 studies; p < 0.05). However, in the 1 study in which platelet-rich plasma was stratified into pure platelet-rich plasma and platelet-rich fibrin matrix preparation, there was a significantly lower retear rate for tears of all sizes with platelet-rich plasma and not with platelet-rich fibrin (p < 0.05). Range of motion was shown to be significantly better with early motion (5 of 6 studies; p < 0.05) in the majority of the meta-analyses, without an increased risk of retear (6 of 6 studies; p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The highest Level of Evidence and the highest-quality studies all supported the use of double-row repair, adjunctive platelet-rich plasma, and early-motion rehabilitation postoperatively in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Anterior Versus Posterior Thoracic Discectomy: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the current evidence in the literature on thoracic discectomies, to compare the clinical outcomes, and to determine whether there is evidence to support the use of either the anterior or posterior approach. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Thoracic disc herniations (TDHs) often present with myelopathy, radiculopathy, or a combination of both. The posterior approach for thoracic discectomy has been associated with a lower complication rate, but no systematic review exists comparing the clinical outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library databases were searched in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for studies performing an anterior or posterior thoracic discectomy. The methodological quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies checklist. The reported clinical outcomes were evaluated using risk ratio, with a P < 0.05 being considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Thirty-seven clinical studies with 1156 patients with 1300 TDHs were included in this review. There was no statistically significant difference in the total neurological improvement or neurological worsening using either an anterior approach or a posterior approach (P = 0.02812 and P = 0.5232, respectively). However, there was a statistically significant higher rate of total complications in the anterior approach (P = 0.0024). CONCLUSION: The anterior approach and posterior approach have been shown to be very similar in terms of neurological outcomes. Although the posterior approach was shown to have a lower rate of total complications, this was largely because of a decrease in minor respiratory complications seen in the anterior approach. The optimal approach may therefore be based on surgeon preference as well as patient factors, specifically cardiorespiratory with American Society of Anaesthesiologists grading. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.